November 15, 2013

Many people have conflicting opinions regarding the Occupy-movement. Many opine that a sound and organized list of demands have to first be articulated so that the movement can gain serious ground in their fight. The absence of a clear and united agenda may be a strong deterrent to its progress. Others say that this lack of goals is at the heart of the movement, that there may be a variety of programmes for different Occupy movements, and that these movements are one in that they uphold their right to civil-disobedience.

Many other demonstrations seem to have been encouraged by the Occupy movement.

There seems to be a lot of people disillusioned with rundown current state of affairs – in economy, in government, in politics. Almost all protests in this classic year of restlessness seem to focus on the economic recession and the growing tremendous disparity between the few rich and powerful and the rest – in economic as well as in political clout and domination. A principal gripe is about the grave injustices/iniquities brought on by the lopsided large-scale/global and local corporate muscle. The Occupy protests are all around – in Greece where people strongly complain about austerity-measures, in Israel where protesters rally against the continuing mounting cost of prices, in New York with its Occupy Wall Street movement, in Spain where the youth protest the lack of jobs available for them.

Many individuals disdain this lack of direction on the part of the movement. To many, the statements are too generalized, over-simplified, too sweeping. There seems to be a lack of a clear missive of mission and vision, no well-defined problems or solutions which will serve to unite people to its cause. A lot of people look with this disdain at this lack, opining that if the movement fails to put down in clear terms what their goals are and how they intend to attain them, they should not make too much of a raucous. Many people seem to feel that the protesters are protesting for the sake of protesting, without putting much thought and planning into what it is exactly they intend to work for and achieve.

To sympathizers, however, this is not a valid reason for censure. One can tell that something is decidedly wrong with the present state of affairs and has the right to point this out to anybody, without possessing clear-cut and precise ideas on how to resolve the problems. One should be able to justifiably protest the status-quo, to bring out into the open his grievances, without knowing exactly what to do to put things right. Those who are aggrieved are not always in the position to know how to turn things onto the right direction. If their right to express these grievances depends on putting forward exact solutions, they are likely to remain mute. And this seems to be a definite way of further entrenching the status-quo, no matter how wrong/unjust it clearly seems to be.

The Occupy movement seems to be a valid, non-violent way of getting people to exchange ideas about the current state of affairs. It encourages people to talk about the present economy, about politics, and about possibilities for change if such is required. Such interchange of thoughts and ideas may be on the realm of views at present, but hopefully, some more tangible action may result eventually. If we view the movement from this perspective, it seems to be gaining some solid ground.

One other interesting facet of the Occupy movement is the absence of leaders. The movement seems to be galvanized by sheer force of social media. People on the internet help to spread the word, even if they are not physically present in the quiet demonstrations. There is no vital hierarchy of leaders and almost anybody who shares the same sentiments is allowed into the so-called “tent.”

One other effect of social media is that people from other countries tend to sympathize with people of other nations and their situation in a show of unity and team spirit. Issues affecting people of one nation become real to people overseas as well.

Detractors of the protest movement say that these protests “encroach on other people’s rights.” Some people raise their brows on this statement, though, questioning how much harm a handful of people camping out on a square that has seen better days can inflict on others. Even the complaints of violence by council members were countered by the general observation that there was no violence at all until the police descended on the group and drew force on them. Many individuals fail to see the violence in disobeying a call to leave the premises; this is what is referred to as civil disobedience, a phenomenon accepted by and large as part of history. As to the comments that the protesters have had their week-long chance to air their views, sympathizers comment that the right to assemble and to speak freely has no set schedules.

Many people seem to think that politicians are better off listening to what protesters have to say.

THIS IS EXACTLY RIGHT!!!

They may be more edified and enlightened by this action compared with the endless and dreary debates that go on and on in the parliament – taking more than the week given to the protesters.

According to its members, the Occupy movement allows people to give vent to their feelings. It gives them a venue for expressing their discontent. It allows them the option of sharing their thoughts with other people, and the possibility of coming across solutions which might work. All they ask for is the freedom to their voice, and a little space to converge in.